Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I have been playing piano recreationally for almost 10 years now, and I am starting to wonder about thoery and so-forth. Firstly, I have a few questions.

In my fiddling about with various chords, I have come across certain progressions, which I quite like, however I would like to know how these are more formally written (and they might be very common progressions too, I'm not sure.)

(For the purposes of this, I will consider the lowest C on the piano, to be C0, the next C up, C1 etc, with C3 being Middle C, and C7 being the highest note on the piano (at least on my piano). (The note 2 semi-tones above C3 would be considered D3)

For my first progression, it goes as follows. (For simplicity sake, imagine that each is held for a whole bar)

The first two notes in all progressions below, are the root 8va (root octave chords); These are played by the Left Hand (LH). The other three notes proceeding are played by the right hand (RH).In the first chord below, the Eb1 and Eb2 are the LH, the other three are right hand.

Eb1 Eb2 G2 Bb2 Eb3Bb0 Bb1 F2 Bb2 D3C0 C1 G2 C3 Eb3Bb0 Bb1 F2 Bb2 D3

What I would like to know about this, is what is meant when peopel say dominant chords, subdominant chords etc, augmented, diminished etc (I know about minor and major) and if any of those are in this progression. I also know about chord inversions, and generally can realise them. For anyone who has knowledge on this topic, insight would be greatly appreciated. Also, is this B flat minor, or E flat major? Or is it another one?

For my next progression, it is double the length, still imagine every one is held for one bar, for simplicity sake.

Thanks. Those are my progressions which I have (hopefully) created. I would REALLY appreciate any help which someone could give to me in relation to some chord theory. Thanks. (Excuse my notation if it is clumsy)

You’ve gone to a lot of trouble to spell out some “progressive chords” ... but if the object of the exercise is to ham a bunch of chords in a fixed finger spread, you might just be wasting your time.

This approach is largely adopted by guitarists who settle for a strumming 6 LH chords to back up the real fun of picking at the melody.

However, in the long run most of us work on memorising some classic (ie. Fur Elise, etc) and steadily build up an ever expanding repertoire ... making the diligent practice devoted to each a very necessary firm foundation upon which to expand our keyboard adventures.

Hoping the above is seen to be positive.

Kind regards, btb

PS Looking forward to the 5-day Cricket Test in Adelaide on Thursday when our blokes will be fighting it out with you Aussies.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 19969
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: MichaelN

....What I would like to know about this, is what is meant when peopel say dominant chords, subdominant chords etc, augmented, diminished....

Well I think we can answer this part for him anyway....

"Dominant" means the "V" (five) chord in whatever key you're in. Like, in C major (or minor), "dominant" would be G major (or G7 if it's the dominant 7th, which means adding F to the chord). By the way it's called "five" because it's the 5th note up from C (C is counted as the first note). As you probably know, this is a very important chord in any key, really the most important chord except for the "tonic" (which is what the C chord is called in C major or minor).

"Subdominant" means the "IV" (four) chord -- i.e. the F chord if the key is C. (Sometimes the II chord is also considered a subdominant.)

"Augmented" means that the 5th note of the chord is raised a half step. Like, an augmented C major chord would have a G# instead of G.

"Diminished" is a very special chord, and very common, but probably harder to describe than the augmented. All the notes of a diminished chord are a minor-3rd apart -- like, if it starts on C, the other notes would be Eb, Gb, and A. (Those notes can be anywhere on the piano, so the intervals between the notes that you play can be greater than a minor 3rd.) It's a very special chord because of how versatile it is: it can lead to almost any other chord, by taking any of the notes either up or down to the next chord.

BTW the first progression is in Eb major. I didn't look at the others.

Mark was kind enough to respond so I'll simply add one other bit. When you outlined Bb, D and F that's a Bb chord (certainly not d minor augmented). When Dave suggested you purchase a theory book he was using the philosophy of teaching a man to fish (as opposed to giving him a fish) and feeding him for life.

If you have an interest in writing songs or music then this is stuff you need to understand. What you've asked is fairly basic (okay very basic) and we simply don't have the resources nor patience to take you through an entire course of theory and harmony. Now if you have issues understanding something you'll probably come up with a more interesting question which we're probably more likely to answer. One example which you stumbles upon is why isn't D, F, A# (to spell it correctly) a d minor augmented chord?

So now I'll actually answer that question. Technically, it is! A# is an augmented fifth from D, but you'll never hear it that way. What you actually hear is a first inversion Bb chord, because the A# is enharmonically equivalent to Bb and Bb, D and F spell a Bb major chord. Put the D in the lowest voice simply inverts the harmony (first inversion). If the F was in the bass then it would be the more exotic (slightly rarer) second inversion.

An indirect way of saying the chappie doesn't know what the heck he is talking about! ...

but all the blather sounds frightfully intellectual.

If you switch off the intellect, you can't discuss anything. Music theory isn't that complicated if you understand it. Once you do, it's the tool you use to memorise vast amounts of material, to sight read efficiently, and to be able to improvise reliably over chord changes. Makes me laugh when people imply that knowing less is going to be beneficial.

It is a balance. Music theory can be a bunch of well learned symbols and formulas. You can end up being able to correctly shove notes around on the page, ace theory exams, and analyze existing music accordingly without sensing a thing. You can already have an internal understanding of the patterns in music which theory represents which gives you a first rough sense, and then get to theory to make sense of it. You might start with the theory and get the sense of it afterward, in reverse order of the previous.

I'd say music theory is the equivalent of grammar. You can do without grammar in everyday chat - you might even be understood some, or most of the time . But you won't be able to express yourself beyond the most rudimentary, when you can't even string a complete sentence properly using the right tenses, with adjectives etc in the right places, etc.

Many pop singers use only very basic harmony in their songs, often no more than 3 or 4 chords - though of course many enlist the help of an arranger to spice up the music. There's nothing to stop anyone from playing around on the piano or guitar to see which chord 'fits' the tune, but how much better if, just by hearing the tune in your head, you already know the best harmony (and alternative harmonies) to use, and can write down the music straightaway, as well as reproduce it on the piano or play the guitar along with singing the tune. And you can do that if you know the basics of music theory.

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

It seems the OP has stumbled upon one of the perennial discussions on Pianist Corner, whether knowing theory is beneficial. The initial responses were along the lines of we'll help a little but the subject is too big to cover in an online forum. Then btb made his pithy response to my post and we were on the track of the value of knowing music theory. I well understand that the subject can be intimidating and those who can make what they consider perfectly good music without deep knowledge of theory consider the time investment (to learn theory) to not be worth it. Yet always in these discussions it seems no one who has deep knowledge of theory shares that opinion. Whose opinion is more valid?

Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.

didyougethathing
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 545
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: debrucey

Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.

Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.

Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

This is going off-topic fast!

I think the "IIb" in this case is from a slightly obscure nomenclature used in some countries of British origin in which the inversions of a chord are described as IIa, IIb, IIc etc. So a IIb is a II chord using the bass note of the subdominant. A bII is a whole different ballgame as the chord is built on a completely different tone. I still wouldn't call "IIb" a subdominant, but you could call it a subdominant substitution or equivalent.

I have an old book with Ib, IIb etc. Ia means root position, Ib = 1st inversion (C/E), Ic = 2nd inversion (C/G). There are no capital and small letter conventions for major and minor. If music is in C major, and you see IIb then it means Dm/F and you're just supposed to know that the 2nd degree chord in a major key is minor. Not my favorite system but the first I studied.

Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.

Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

This is going off-topic fast!

I think the "IIb" in this case is from a slightly obscure nomenclature used in some countries of British origin in which the inversions of a chord are described as IIa, IIb, IIc etc. So a IIb is a II chord using the bass note of the subdominant. A bII is a whole different ballgame as the chord is built on a completely different tone. I still wouldn't call "IIb" a subdominant, but you could call it a subdominant substitution or equivalent.

He's not saying chord IIb is a subdominant. He is saying that chord IIb can act like a subdominant leading to V.Example: instead of your usual IV-V-I cadence, what commonly appears is IIb-V-I... (or with the added seventh IIb7-V-I

Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.

Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

This is going off-topic fast!

I think the "IIb" in this case is from a slightly obscure nomenclature used in some countries of British origin in which the inversions of a chord are described as IIa, IIb, IIc etc. So a IIb is a II chord using the bass note of the subdominant. A bII is a whole different ballgame as the chord is built on a completely different tone. I still wouldn't call "IIb" a subdominant, but you could call it a subdominant substitution or equivalent.

He's not saying chord IIb is a subdominant. He is saying that chord IIb can act like a subdominant leading to V.Example: instead of your usual IV-V-I cadence, what commonly appears is IIb-V-I... (or with the added seventh IIb7-V-I

Damon
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 09/22/06
Posts: 6326
Loc: St. Louis area

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

Originally Posted By: Damon

By whom?

I take it you'll feel your question was answered.

Not really. An authentic cadence is just V, I, the sub-dominant is optional. I've never heard anyone refer to II as the sub-dominant before and still haven't, definitively. But that's okay if you want to think of it that way, from my perspective, it is unnecessarily confusing.

Guys, I just skimmed the last few posts ... you make it even more confusing when you write II (for a diatonic triad built on scale degree two in major) when ii clearly indicates the flavor of the triad as being minor.

I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.

IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' . Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc....

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."